UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAIHAR CEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are arising out of the common order dated 25.4.2012 passed by writ Court in W.P. No. 469/2009 and other, by which all the connected matters were decided by the order. Considering the aforesaid, we propose to decide all the matters by this common order. For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from W.A. No. 645/2012. The controversy involved in all these cases is short one, in respect of applicability of a notification issued by the Railway Board dated 11.1.1995, by which the Railway Board had directed to delegate full powers to the General Manager to settle time barred compensation claims for refund of overcharges. In these cases the question involved is for consideration of the settlement of time barred compensation claim of the respondent for refund of the overcharges.

(2.) THE sole contention raised by Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant/railways, is that the aforesaid circular is contrary to the provisions as contained in Section 106 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989") and no direction could not have been issued by the Railway Board directing the appellant herein to consider time barred compensation claims for refund of overcharges. That Section 106 of the Act of 1989 bars for a claim for compensation and refund of overcharges, if it is not noticed within a period of six months from the date of delivery of goods at the destination station. That the writ Court has erred in directing the appellants for consideration of claims of the respondent for refund of time barred overcharges. He has placed reliance upon two decisions of Apex Court, one reported in : (1991) 4 SCC 333 - Vinod Gurudas Raikar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others and another judgment reported in : (2008) 3 SCC 73 -Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Noida Vs. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida. It is submitted by him that the order passed by the writ Court may be set aside.

(3.) TO appreciate rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to see the factual position. The dispute is in respect of refund of overcharges which were claimed by the respondent beyond the period of six months from the date of delivery of goods at the destination station. The Board had issued a Circular on 11.1.1995, by which the General Managers were delegated the full powers by the Board to settle time barred compensation claims, in consultation with the FA and CAO in respect of the monitory limits, for refund of overcharges. It is also not disputed that the aforesaid order has been subsequently withdrawn by the Board by another order dated 22.2.2010. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, the case may be examined.